Can 'wise' cities be made of 'gates'?

Formerly the reserve of DMI’s, gated enclaves are becoming the aspirational living, shopping and working environments for seemingly all upwardly mobile Indians. Given the weak character of the public realm in Indian cities, it is a natural reaction by the market and individuals to seek “safe havens”. Not surprisingly, gated cells of development have become the default typology for Indian real estate developers. Because of their fresh appearance and modern conveniences, many administrations may even consider them as part of the “smart city” equation. Governments are initially happy to save on the cost of building or maintaining the infrastructure of large tracts of land within the fabric of the city. Since these development cells are what well healed Indians and many city administration want, the bigger, the better, what’s the rub? Unfortunately, global experience demonstrates that as smart as these individual enclaves may be, in the aggregate, they do not make a smart city.

Today over 80% of Chinese in leading cities live in gated compounds. Aspirational citizens moved into these enclaves over the last decades for many of the same reasons Indians are doing so today: perceived safety, convenience, luxury and exclusivity. Yet a few months ago, the Chinese government implemented a law that will not only prohibit new gated compounds from being built, but will open up existing enclaves. Certainly not a popular move, but one that was considered fundamentally necessary.

There are three troubling urban trends, which “smart cities” are intended to help overcome, which are exacerbated by the over-proliferation of enclosed closed urban development: ineffective urban mobility, societal segregation and an unprecedented increase in lifestyle diseases.

India is facing many of the same challenges, just as its “Smart City” initiative gathers momentum, yet this watershed urban policy change, in the world’s largest economy, has gone unnoticed in India. Even China’s seemingly unlimited budget and capacity to develop infrastructure could not overcome the inherent inefficiency of closed cell urban development.

Cities comprised of closed urban compounds, increase vehicle usage and the length of journeys on fewer roads, the inefficiency of movement not only increases congestion, but contributes additional PM 2.5, NOX in the atmosphere, not to be taken lightly, in India, where the leading cause of death is lung disease. Gated urbanism also decreased the viability of public transport and active mobility, like walking and cycling, instead it promotes a high carbon lifestyle.

Cellular development segregates by design, whether it be economic or caste. While walls temporarily reduce crime within compounds, it increases the propensity and severity of crime in what remains of the public realm. The separation comes at an additional cost: in the United States residents of gated communities are less civically engaged and are victims of more domestic violence than non-gated areas of similar standing.

Enclosed development areas, be they residential or commercial, are associated with higher rates of lifestyle diseases, or NCD’s. Simply put, daily life in such compounds promote inactivity. Only a small minority use the token fitness facilities to a degree which offsets their otherwise sedentary lifestyles within a fragmented urban environment. Insurance companies are increasingly aware of the correlation between costly NCD’s closed compounds, commute times and the sedentary lifestyle they promote. Their databases will allow them to price the inherent risk accordingly in the near future.

The world’s most valuable and sustainable urban districts are not comprised of gated development compounds. They are districts and neighbourhoods that are part of the fabric of a cities life, day in day out. Not separate from it, not above it. They achieve transportation fluidity by incorporating a mix of uses and providing options for movement, including with your feet. Security, is achieved by making the neighbourhood streets a social theatre where each person is an active participant. Well-being comes not from a gym, but by using the city as your gym.

In any case, from a developer’s point of view, people who spend more on transportation, have less to spend on real-estate. Why overspend money on security, when the best form of security is generated by the people themselves. Finally, isn’t a measurably healthy environment the ultimate trump card for real estate marketing? Wise indeed.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETRealty.com does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETRealty.com shall not be responsible for any damage caused to any person/organisation directly or indirectly.